linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V6] gpio: virtio: Add IRQ support

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20211021100220.oxwwfj6jegxdvmxw@vireshk-i7>
Date:   Thu, 21 Oct 2021 15:32:20 +0530
From:   Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
Cc:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...nel.org>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@...libre.com>,
        Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>,
        "Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult" <info@...ux.net>,
        Viresh Kumar <vireshk@...nel.org>,
        "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>,
        Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
        Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe@...aro.org>,
        Bill Mills <bill.mills@...aro.org>,
        Alex Bennée <alex.bennee@...aro.org>,
        Cornelia Huck <cohuck@...hat.com>,
        Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
        "stratos-dev@...lists.linaro.org" <stratos-dev@...lists.linaro.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>,
        "linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
        "virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org" 
        <virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V6] gpio: virtio: Add IRQ support

On 21-10-21, 12:58, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> I admit I haven't looked into the specification, but in the past we
> had had quite an issue exactly in GPIO on kernel side because of this
> kind of design mistake.

> The problem here if in the future one wants to
> supply more than one item at a time, it will be not possible with this
> interface.

Why ?

> Yes, I understand that in current design it's rather missed
> scalability, but hey, I believe in the future we may need
> performance-wise calls.

-- 
viresh